LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — The state bar needs one other shot at stripping Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones of his regulation license, in accordance with paperwork obtained by the 8 Information Now Investigators.
In March, a listening to panel charged with deciding whether or not to self-discipline Jones voted to reprimand him as an alternative of revoking or suspending his regulation license. The state bar urged the panel to disbar Jones for deleting textual content messages associated to a controversial actual property improvement mission close to Purple Rock Canyon. Furthermore, it rejected outright the state bar’s declare that Jones bribed then-county-commissioner and eventual Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak.
The panel — comprised totally of volunteers — rejected outright the notion of bribery and defined to Jones, his attorneys and the state bar counsel that they opted to reprimand him due to so-called character proof portraying Jones in a very good mild.
Nevertheless, in latest filings with regard to Jones’ disciplinary matter, the state bar counsel, Dan Hooge, requested a brand new listening to primarily based on what they discuss with as “misconduct” by Jones’ legal professional, who Hooge wrote made “improper closing arguments” which prejudiced the jury. Hooge additionally argues, in his April 28 movement, that the panel ignored directions “against using character evidence to determine guilt or innocence.”
“The cumulative effect of these improper arguments prejudiced the State Bar’s case, denying it a fair hearing,” Hooge wrote. “Each tactic—golden rule arguments, emotional appeals, vouching, and mocking—individually and collectively undermined the panel’s ability to impartially evaluate the evidence.”
Hooge additionally mentioned that Jones’ legal professional, former Clark County District Courtroom Choose Rob Naked spoke for too lengthy to the panel, indicating that Naked’s four-hour closing argument “was improper.”
Included within the 22 pages of memorandum and displays is a signed declaration by one of many three volunteer panelists, which was comprised of two volunteer attorneys and one member of the general public. Legal professional Rachel Clever, beneath the pains and penalties of perjury, wrote that the panel’s deliberations had been “influenced by Respondent’s counsel’s improper tactics, including name-calling, crying, and golden rule violations.”
Clever wrote that the one member of the general public empaneled to resolve Jones’ disciplinary matter “voted emotionally.”
“I believe that the improper conduct from Respondent’s counsel prejudiced the panel’s ability to render a fair and impartial decision,” Clever wrote.
Jones didn’t reply to a request for remark. His legal professional, Naked, did reply to the 8 Information Now Investigators’ request for remark, writing, “Please review our opposition to the motion you reference. It speaks for itself.”
To that finish, in his personal movement, Naked didn’t mince phrases.
“The State Bar’s motion seems to operate in an alternate universe where the Hearing Panel somehow gave Mr. Joens a free pass for the misconduct it ultimately found him guilty of, arguing that the decision to ‘impose only a reprimand’ suggests the panel was ‘swayed’ for improper reasons,” Naked wrote, calling the movement “litigator’s remorse.”
Naked additionally signed a written declaration beneath the pains and penalties of perjury, through which he took challenge with a number of the allegations in a separate writing from Clever’s, an nameless survey which in the end was made public, through which she wrote Naked “screamed” on the state bar’s professional witness, UNLV Regulation Professor Benjamin Edwards.
The listening to, Clever wrote within the survey, gave her a “two-day migraine.”
Edwards testified about whether or not and why, in his opinion, Jones dedicated bribery.
“My closing argument was reflective of the fact that I was defending two different bar complaints combined into one, which alleged various serious charges against Mr. Jones, including that he had committed a felony criminal act,” Naked wrote in his declaration. “As the State Bar was seeking to permanently disbar Mr. Jones, I felt it was entirely necessary and appropriate to give the closing arguments that I did. It is unfortunate that Ms. Wise felt the need to resort calling me a ‘2 -year-old.'”
This case is at the moment beneath computerized assessment by the Supreme Courtroom of Nevada, with briefs due on June 19.
